Spot on Analysis of Michael Vick Plea Deal

In short, Michael Vick has destroyed a very bright football career for the supposed pleasure of watching dogs rip each other to shreds. If that’s not irrational, then I’m not sure what is.

That’s Diana Hsieh in a post titled Vicious and Stupid.

Posted by on 08/21 at 04:45 AM

  1. Question: Should engaging in dog fighting be a crime? While I find it cruel, repulsive, abhorrent, and anyone who is involved in it a (small) step away from a violent sociopath, dogs (as they are animals) are property. And ownership implies being able to use and dispose of property.
    The conditions that young cows are kept in to provide veal are no less repulsive. And the argument that they provide food fails against the point that while food is necessary, veal as a particular dish is not. People eat veal because they enjoy the taste, and others fight dogs because they are amoral thugs who derive pleasure from the misery of other living things. But somewhere, because people enjoy veal, cows are suffering just as Vick’s dogs were.

    In a free society, Vick should have been ostracized when his activity came to light, and ended up without a football career. But to also end up in prison?

    Posted by  on  08/21  at  08:18 AM

  2. Question: Should engaging in dog fighting be a crime?

    Barry, the answer to your question is an emphatic no.

    I agree with your comment about ostracization, and alluded to this in this post.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  08/21  at  10:09 AM
  3. Question: Should engaging in dog fighting be a crime?
    Let’s say no, but acknowledge that Vick has no reason to concern himself with anyone’s deploring or disdain.  Absent enforced prohibition, he could operate openly.  Advertise.  Provide ample parking.  Offer pay-per-view.  Market his own line of fashions and “training” accessories, not to mention his own line of dogs, which he seemed well on the way to establishing.

    And of course people—certainly way more than half the people we know and all of the people we want to know—would condemn this sort of thing to no end.  And to no avail, as far as I can see. 

    It’s all well and good to frown ferociously, but I don’t see how anything less than force—or that well-known threat thereof—could put down the sort of thing Vick is into.  And yes, of course, I realize that even outlawed, dog-fighting and more thrives underground.  But is there any misguided notion anywhere that legalization—or just laying off the dude’s property—would lower the incidence or curb the brutality of blood sport?  Of course not.

    So a resounding No would seem to mean that, bad and awful and horrible as it is, in that better world of inviolable property rights, there’d be a hell of a lot more of it.  And people who didn’t like it would just have to watch themselves and make sure they didn’t get too close to trammelling somebody’s rights.

    How well would that go?

    Posted by  on  08/21  at  03:40 PM

  4. So a resounding No would seem to mean that, bad and awful and horrible as it is, in that better world of inviolable property rights, there’d be a hell of a lot more of it.  And people who didn’t like it would just have to watch themselves and make sure they didn’t get too close to trammelling somebody’s rights.

    Linda, I do not necessarily think that there would be a “hell of a lot more” of despicable individuals getting their jollies over dogs killing other dogs in a world of “inviolable property rights.”

    There will always be a minority portion, of any popultion, which thrills in cruelty, has no respect for property or individuals, and generally lacks a moral compass.  To think otherwise is to embrace a utopian flight of fancy.

    This may be unfortunate, but it is reality.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  08/22  at  06:29 AM

  5. I agree that a minority of any population will always thrill to cruelty, and I recognize that the proportion apt to indulge, cultivate and commercialize such taste is elastic and culturally influenced.  Do away with legal proscriptions at all levels – federal, state, local – and I don’t see how you get around significant increase in the number of people patronizing whatever sorts of bloody sports and spectacles the most despicable among us would be free to promote for fun and profit.  Even if only the stupidest one percent of people in the US could be persuaded to give blood sports a, um, fair hearing (witness those who have publicly defended Vick), well that’s a . . . community of more than 3,000,000 souls, many of whom might want to make a small wager here and there, just to make it more interesting.  That would no doubt swell the ranks of the 40,000 or so irrational dogfightin’ aficionados guestimated here and around to be at least somewhat “organized” and “professional” – despite the present risk of financial ruin and imprisonment.

    The vast majority of us would be horrified by any increase in the practice and acceptance of animal fighting, of course.  And outraged.  And possibly mobilized to just . . . denounce.  And disapprove.  Hotter heads could even attempt in some manner to interfere with the profitability of animal fighting by perhaps boycotting some business or another.  But that would have to be about it.  Because interfering with someone’s right to dispose of his property as he sees fit and to peacefully conduct his own lawful affairs cannot be tolerated.  Damage some dog man’s property and you’ll have to answer for that violation.  Best thing to do if you really really don’t like living next door to the Bad Newz Coliseum would be to just move to someplace where people arrange contractually to disallow that sort of thing on the property they own.

    This would all be unfortunate, and I just don’t see it as sustainable or desirable as reality.

    Posted by  on  08/22  at  10:17 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Ted Nugent for Governor of Michigan?

Previous entry: "Extort-O-Rama" Connection

<< Back to main